What do you think?
Rate this book
The 1619 Project: A Critique
”When I first weighed in upon the New York Times’ 1619 Project, I was struck by its conflicted messaging. Comprising an entire magazine feature and a sizable advertising budget, the newspaper’s initiative conveyed a serious attempt to engage the public in an intellectual exchange about the history of slavery in the United States and its lingering harms to our social fabric. It also seemed to avoid the superficiality of many public history initiatives, which all too often reduce over 400 complex years of slavery’s history and legacy to sweeping generalizations. Instead, the Times promised detailed thematic explorations of topics ranging from the first slave ship’s arrival in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619 to the politics of race in the present day.
At the same time, however, certain 1619 Project essayists infused this worthy line of inquiry with a heavy stream of ideological advocacy. Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones announced this political intention openly, pairing progressive activism with the initiative’s stated educational purposes.
In assembling these essays, I make no claim of resolving what continues to be a vibrant and ongoing discussion. Neither should my work be viewed as the final arbiter of historical accuracy, though I do evaluate a number of factual and interpretive claims made by the project’s authors. Rather, the aim is to provide an accessible resource for readers wishing to navigate the scholarly disputes, offering my own interpretive take on claims pertaining to areas of history in which I have worked." -- Phil Magness
Phillip W. Magness is an economic historian specializing in the 19th century United States. He is the author of numerous works on the political and economic dimensions of slavery, the history of taxation, and the history of economic thought.
The American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, was founded in 1933 as the first independent voice for sound economics in the United States. Today it publishes ongoing research, hosts educational programs, publishes books, sponsors interns and scholars, and is home to the world-renowned Bastiat Society and the highly respected Sound Money Project. The American Institute for Economic Research is a 501c3 public charity.
At the same time, however, certain 1619 Project essayists infused this worthy line of inquiry with a heavy stream of ideological advocacy. Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones announced this political intention openly, pairing progressive activism with the initiative’s stated educational purposes.
In assembling these essays, I make no claim of resolving what continues to be a vibrant and ongoing discussion. Neither should my work be viewed as the final arbiter of historical accuracy, though I do evaluate a number of factual and interpretive claims made by the project’s authors. Rather, the aim is to provide an accessible resource for readers wishing to navigate the scholarly disputes, offering my own interpretive take on claims pertaining to areas of history in which I have worked." -- Phil Magness
Phillip W. Magness is an economic historian specializing in the 19th century United States. He is the author of numerous works on the political and economic dimensions of slavery, the history of taxation, and the history of economic thought.
The American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, was founded in 1933 as the first independent voice for sound economics in the United States. Today it publishes ongoing research, hosts educational programs, publishes books, sponsors interns and scholars, and is home to the world-renowned Bastiat Society and the highly respected Sound Money Project. The American Institute for Economic Research is a 501c3 public charity.
138 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 7, 2020
289 people are currently reading
303 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
October 16, 2020
The New York Times recently attempted to engage its readers in an invigorating intellectual deliberation and discourse that had at its epicenter, the history of slavery in the United States and its continuing impact on the societal fabric. This initiative was named Project 1619, after first slave ship’s arrival in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619. However, as Phillip W. Magness, a Senior Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research explains in his short work, “The 1619 Project, A Critique”, many essayists ‘appropriated’ this opportunity to link slavery with notions such as progressive activism and many other similar ‘causes’, and in the process diluting the very purpose of the original initiative. In fact, some of the essayists, as Magness illustrates, equated slavery with capitalism and free market principles and vehemently postulated that modern capitalism embedded within its confines the taint of slavery.
A classic example was an essay penned by Princeton sociologist Matthew Desmond. Railing against the ‘horrors’ of the plantation system, he argued that modern capitalism was still accompanied by the apparitions of the slave economy. The brilliant and erudite journalist and best-selling author Ta-Nehisi Coates also seems to have towed the Project 1619 line when in a congressional hearing on reparations, he expounded – stunningly – that, by 1836, more than $600 million worth of economic activity in the United States was the direct or indirect outcome of the cotton produced, courtesy a million odd slaves. For the unsuspecting, this whopping number was representative of more than half of the economic activity in the nation!
The inspiration for both Desmond and Coates was a book imaginatively titled “The Half Has Never Been Told” penned by Cornell Historian Ed Baptist. While Baptist himself initially opined that the total value of economic activity that derived from cotton production, was around $77 million, comprising, approximately, 5 percent of the estimated gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States, he then, “proceeded to double and even triple count intermediate transactions involved in cotton production—things like land purchases for plantations, tools used for cotton production, transportation, insurance, and credit instruments used in each. Eventually that $77 million became $600 million in Baptist’s accounting, or almost half of the entire antebellum economy of the United States.” As Magness informs his readers, economists, Alan Olmstead and Paul Rhode came up with a scathing rebuke of Baptist’s work, emphatically and empirically demonstrating that “cotton-picking yields tended to follow daily variations across the crop season, not Baptist’s posited use of a torture-enforced quota system. In addition to his faulty GDP statistics, they showed that Baptist severely overstated the amount of wealth tied up in slavery.”
Mr. Magness reserves his harshest criticism for the school of thought that goes by the moniker, New History of Capitalism (“NHC”). Terming it an anti-capitalist clique which neither brooks alternative thoughts and opinions nor encourages dissent, he posits that NHC is an embodiment of insularity. According to Magness, the output churned out by the NHC is an unfortunate amalgam of “shoddy economic analysis”, and “documented misuse of historical evidence.” The NHC also seems to adopt peculiar methodologies when it comes to addressing dissent. The two alternatives that form the twin arrows in its quiver are personal attacks and brazen cold shouldering. Noted critics and historians James McPherson, Gordon Wood, Victoria Bynum, James Oakes, and Sean Wilentz all found this out the hard way when upon attempting to fact check and convey their concerns to the NHC, they were met with a combination of personal diatribes and strategic neglect. The proponents of this school also dismiss their critics as being “old white males.” The exquisite irony here being, by contrast, the only black voices that find amplification in the piece by Matthew Desmond belong to those who are long gone scholars such as W.E.B. Du Bois. This prompts Magness to conclude that the NHC itself suffers from a “whiteness” problem.
Magness opines that by positing theories about the American revolution being a cause against British emancipation, and thus a struggle for the preservation of slavery, and complementing this seemingly ludicrous proposition with yet another one that encourages the logic that capitalism and free market principles are symbolisms for slavery, the NHC is shooting itself firmly in its foot. A fundamental research into the antebellum economy would reveal the fact that pro-slavery proponents were rabidly anti-capitalists who detested the functioning of free markets. George Fitzhugh, one of the most renowned, if not the most renowned pro-slavery advocate, thundered in one fiery speech that “the South must “throw Adam Smith, Say, Ricardo & Co., in the fire.” His book “Sociology for the South”, first published in 1854, emphatically and unashamedly states, “Political economy is the science of free society. Its theory and its history alike establish this position. Its fundamental maxim Laissez-faire and “Pas trop gouverner,” are at war with all kinds of slavery, for they in fact assert that individuals and peoples prosper most when governed least.”
Magness alleges that the NHC is thus a novel historiographical body of scholars that is comfortably ensconced in its personal echo chamber, perpetuating and self-perpetuating views that find endorsement and approval from the inmates resident within such a cloistered echo chamber. This echo chamber “misrepresent(s) or completely neglect(s) scholarly works from outside of that echo chamber, and recklessly dismisses their critics on account of a racial demography that has an even more pronounced presence in their own ranks. Furthermore, in doing so, they (the NHC) lay mistaken claim to a competing black radical historiographic tradition, essentially botching its most famous arguments in the process through a careless and politicized reading.”
Leslie M. Harris, a professor of history at Northwestern University, and author of “In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626-1863” and “Slavery and the University: Histories and Legacies” was approached by the New York Times editor prior to the publication of the essay that inter alia asserted, “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.” Being an expert in the subject of African American life and slavery, Ms. Harris was asked to verify the facts as contained within the essay. She vehemently disputed the aforementioned sentence and reiterated that notwithstanding the fact that slavery was definitely a key factor in the American Revolution, its preservation was NOT one of the primary reasons the 13 colonies waged war. Despite such authoritative and informed advice from the historian, the Times went ahead with the twisted statement. A reluctant “update”, and not an errata was published much later, amending the original offending passage to clarify that slavery was a primary motivation for some of the colonists.”
Till such time the NHC “mends” its ways, and nurtures an environment of informed deliberation and decent dissent, the voices of criticism are not going to abate.
A classic example was an essay penned by Princeton sociologist Matthew Desmond. Railing against the ‘horrors’ of the plantation system, he argued that modern capitalism was still accompanied by the apparitions of the slave economy. The brilliant and erudite journalist and best-selling author Ta-Nehisi Coates also seems to have towed the Project 1619 line when in a congressional hearing on reparations, he expounded – stunningly – that, by 1836, more than $600 million worth of economic activity in the United States was the direct or indirect outcome of the cotton produced, courtesy a million odd slaves. For the unsuspecting, this whopping number was representative of more than half of the economic activity in the nation!
The inspiration for both Desmond and Coates was a book imaginatively titled “The Half Has Never Been Told” penned by Cornell Historian Ed Baptist. While Baptist himself initially opined that the total value of economic activity that derived from cotton production, was around $77 million, comprising, approximately, 5 percent of the estimated gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States, he then, “proceeded to double and even triple count intermediate transactions involved in cotton production—things like land purchases for plantations, tools used for cotton production, transportation, insurance, and credit instruments used in each. Eventually that $77 million became $600 million in Baptist’s accounting, or almost half of the entire antebellum economy of the United States.” As Magness informs his readers, economists, Alan Olmstead and Paul Rhode came up with a scathing rebuke of Baptist’s work, emphatically and empirically demonstrating that “cotton-picking yields tended to follow daily variations across the crop season, not Baptist’s posited use of a torture-enforced quota system. In addition to his faulty GDP statistics, they showed that Baptist severely overstated the amount of wealth tied up in slavery.”
Mr. Magness reserves his harshest criticism for the school of thought that goes by the moniker, New History of Capitalism (“NHC”). Terming it an anti-capitalist clique which neither brooks alternative thoughts and opinions nor encourages dissent, he posits that NHC is an embodiment of insularity. According to Magness, the output churned out by the NHC is an unfortunate amalgam of “shoddy economic analysis”, and “documented misuse of historical evidence.” The NHC also seems to adopt peculiar methodologies when it comes to addressing dissent. The two alternatives that form the twin arrows in its quiver are personal attacks and brazen cold shouldering. Noted critics and historians James McPherson, Gordon Wood, Victoria Bynum, James Oakes, and Sean Wilentz all found this out the hard way when upon attempting to fact check and convey their concerns to the NHC, they were met with a combination of personal diatribes and strategic neglect. The proponents of this school also dismiss their critics as being “old white males.” The exquisite irony here being, by contrast, the only black voices that find amplification in the piece by Matthew Desmond belong to those who are long gone scholars such as W.E.B. Du Bois. This prompts Magness to conclude that the NHC itself suffers from a “whiteness” problem.
Magness opines that by positing theories about the American revolution being a cause against British emancipation, and thus a struggle for the preservation of slavery, and complementing this seemingly ludicrous proposition with yet another one that encourages the logic that capitalism and free market principles are symbolisms for slavery, the NHC is shooting itself firmly in its foot. A fundamental research into the antebellum economy would reveal the fact that pro-slavery proponents were rabidly anti-capitalists who detested the functioning of free markets. George Fitzhugh, one of the most renowned, if not the most renowned pro-slavery advocate, thundered in one fiery speech that “the South must “throw Adam Smith, Say, Ricardo & Co., in the fire.” His book “Sociology for the South”, first published in 1854, emphatically and unashamedly states, “Political economy is the science of free society. Its theory and its history alike establish this position. Its fundamental maxim Laissez-faire and “Pas trop gouverner,” are at war with all kinds of slavery, for they in fact assert that individuals and peoples prosper most when governed least.”
Magness alleges that the NHC is thus a novel historiographical body of scholars that is comfortably ensconced in its personal echo chamber, perpetuating and self-perpetuating views that find endorsement and approval from the inmates resident within such a cloistered echo chamber. This echo chamber “misrepresent(s) or completely neglect(s) scholarly works from outside of that echo chamber, and recklessly dismisses their critics on account of a racial demography that has an even more pronounced presence in their own ranks. Furthermore, in doing so, they (the NHC) lay mistaken claim to a competing black radical historiographic tradition, essentially botching its most famous arguments in the process through a careless and politicized reading.”
Leslie M. Harris, a professor of history at Northwestern University, and author of “In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626-1863” and “Slavery and the University: Histories and Legacies” was approached by the New York Times editor prior to the publication of the essay that inter alia asserted, “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies, which had produced tremendous wealth. At the time there were growing calls to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have badly damaged the economies of colonies in both North and South.” Being an expert in the subject of African American life and slavery, Ms. Harris was asked to verify the facts as contained within the essay. She vehemently disputed the aforementioned sentence and reiterated that notwithstanding the fact that slavery was definitely a key factor in the American Revolution, its preservation was NOT one of the primary reasons the 13 colonies waged war. Despite such authoritative and informed advice from the historian, the Times went ahead with the twisted statement. A reluctant “update”, and not an errata was published much later, amending the original offending passage to clarify that slavery was a primary motivation for some of the colonists.”
Till such time the NHC “mends” its ways, and nurtures an environment of informed deliberation and decent dissent, the voices of criticism are not going to abate.
March 31, 2022
This is a scholarly historical and economic critique of the New York Times’ 1619 Project. I haven’t read that series of essays, but I recently finished “The Half Has Never Been Told” by Edward Baptist, which was used as a reference work in the 1619 Project, and is shown here to have a number of serious flaws.
Magness demonstrates that the Project relies heavily on the New History of Capitalism (NHC) literature, which attempts to use slavery as a weapon to condemn free markets. But this group of (largely white) scholars misuses statistics and misinterprets the historical record to make their case. For instance, Baptist double and triple-counts the economic activity related to the cotton industry to imply that cotton, and therefore slavery, was responsible for 50% of the economic output of the US, exaggerating its impact by a factor of ten. Even worse, when other historians have pointed out these (and other) errors, requesting either an explanation or retraction, Baptist thus far has simply refused to respond. The fact that he refuses to address these legitimate critiques from his peers does not speak well of him or his position. Because of these issues I will downgrade my rating of his book. That’s sure to get his attention.
Magness’ critiques of the 1619 Project are narrowly targeted, and he actually supports the Project’s position over and against some critics regarding Abraham Lincoln. Magness agrees that the most recent historical evidence is on their side when they claim that the Great Emancipator did not support full equality for Black people and believed that the best solution would be recolonization to Africa.
There are many other interesting points that Magness discusses in this book, and thankfully, Venky has already written an excellent summary and review, so I needn’t bother:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
[edit 3/31/22:
Here is a recent article by Magness about Hannah-Jones’s book, The 1619 Project:
https://reason.com/2022/03/29/the-161... ]
Magness demonstrates that the Project relies heavily on the New History of Capitalism (NHC) literature, which attempts to use slavery as a weapon to condemn free markets. But this group of (largely white) scholars misuses statistics and misinterprets the historical record to make their case. For instance, Baptist double and triple-counts the economic activity related to the cotton industry to imply that cotton, and therefore slavery, was responsible for 50% of the economic output of the US, exaggerating its impact by a factor of ten. Even worse, when other historians have pointed out these (and other) errors, requesting either an explanation or retraction, Baptist thus far has simply refused to respond. The fact that he refuses to address these legitimate critiques from his peers does not speak well of him or his position. Because of these issues I will downgrade my rating of his book. That’s sure to get his attention.
Magness’ critiques of the 1619 Project are narrowly targeted, and he actually supports the Project’s position over and against some critics regarding Abraham Lincoln. Magness agrees that the most recent historical evidence is on their side when they claim that the Great Emancipator did not support full equality for Black people and believed that the best solution would be recolonization to Africa.
There are many other interesting points that Magness discusses in this book, and thankfully, Venky has already written an excellent summary and review, so I needn’t bother:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
[edit 3/31/22:
Here is a recent article by Magness about Hannah-Jones’s book, The 1619 Project:
https://reason.com/2022/03/29/the-161... ]
April 9, 2021
This is a solid and proficient critique of the 1619 project. I found myself convinced and would recommend the book to people who have questions. I also learned a few things about the slave economy I didn't know beforehand.
March 10, 2021
I'd really hoped to read the actual 1619 Poject edited by Nikole Hannah-Jones and published in the NY Times Magazine first, but it was listed the first time I checked on Amazon at 275USD. I checked a second time and it had actually gone up to 365USD, a little steep for my budget.
However, the author, Phillip W. Magness, strikes me as meticulous in stating the affirmations of the original text, cogent in explaining his objections and quite thorough in explaining them with numerous references and quotations from other historians and economic historians.
I was quite unaware of the New History of Capitalism but was not at all surprised. Nor was I surprised at the rigid ideology, poor interpretations and outright falsifications contained in it.
I was also not surprised at the New York Times simple refusal to even deal with the objections of so many historians whose specialty was US history from Independence to its civil war. A newspaper that will fire a editor for simply allowing an alternative opinion to be published is obviously not one with any tolerance for debate (and certainly not for alternative opinions). I imagine Mr. Magness will be pilloried as a "racist" for daring to call into question things that are simply questions of fact.
That, however, seems to be the trend nowadays. "If you disagree with me it can only be because you are a heartless, homophobic, racist neo-Nazi!"
However, the author, Phillip W. Magness, strikes me as meticulous in stating the affirmations of the original text, cogent in explaining his objections and quite thorough in explaining them with numerous references and quotations from other historians and economic historians.
I was quite unaware of the New History of Capitalism but was not at all surprised. Nor was I surprised at the rigid ideology, poor interpretations and outright falsifications contained in it.
I was also not surprised at the New York Times simple refusal to even deal with the objections of so many historians whose specialty was US history from Independence to its civil war. A newspaper that will fire a editor for simply allowing an alternative opinion to be published is obviously not one with any tolerance for debate (and certainly not for alternative opinions). I imagine Mr. Magness will be pilloried as a "racist" for daring to call into question things that are simply questions of fact.
That, however, seems to be the trend nowadays. "If you disagree with me it can only be because you are a heartless, homophobic, racist neo-Nazi!"
May 24, 2022
Excellent for what it is–a compilation of articles that Magness wrote for various publications critiquing the history and economic shortcomings of the 1619 project, and by extension, the New History of Capitalism school. He does not seek to rebut the underlying critical–theory philosophical foundation, which needs to be done, but in terms of a factual rebuttal this book does a great job.
Interestingly, Magness disagrees with some of the other opponents of the 1619 project (McPherson, Guelzo) on Lincoln's attitude towards race. Instead, he finds a point of partial agreement with Hannah-Jones and others in bringing to light his more complex philosophy towards Black egalitarianism by showing that he did in fact favor colonization and resettlement, and that this was far more than a "strategic" move on his part to somehow "prepare" the country for full emancipation and equality for former slaves. Other than this, the 1619 project is a sloppy, ideologically driven dumpster fire of a project, and Hannah-Jones is a terrible scholar. This book explains why.
Interestingly, Magness disagrees with some of the other opponents of the 1619 project (McPherson, Guelzo) on Lincoln's attitude towards race. Instead, he finds a point of partial agreement with Hannah-Jones and others in bringing to light his more complex philosophy towards Black egalitarianism by showing that he did in fact favor colonization and resettlement, and that this was far more than a "strategic" move on his part to somehow "prepare" the country for full emancipation and equality for former slaves. Other than this, the 1619 project is a sloppy, ideologically driven dumpster fire of a project, and Hannah-Jones is a terrible scholar. This book explains why.
May 2, 2022
So a couple of things.
First, this book is a critique not of the book "The 1619 Project," but of the special edition 1619 magazine that preceded the book. The book is an expansion on the magazine. I have read the book, but not the magazine. While one can assume the content between the book and magazine are similar, they are not the same, so it is possible that a critique of the magazine touches on things that aren't relevant to the book.
Second, this book isn't really, truly even a critique of the "1619 Project" magazine as a whole, but rather of a few pieces from that larger project. Again, I haven't read the original magazine pieces, but my understanding is that, like the book, the original project covers a lot of different ground, with essays by various writers on various topics. This critique is concerned with almost none of that, focuses exclusively on three areas (and spends most of it's pages on only one of those three areas).
That said, this is a good, useful book, although not as good or useful as it might have been had it had a wider scope or had it been given a slightly more appropriate name ("A Critique of Matthew Desmond's Contribution to The 1619 Project," for instance).
This book is mostly a rebuttal of Matthew Desmond's claims (and similar claims in other similar books) that capitalism as we now it today is a child of slavery, that slavery was in essence a capitalist pursuit and that it has shaped our current economic system.
Magness does a solid job of debunking those claims. He shows clear evidence that the capitalists of the antebellum period were largely anti-slavery, and that the pro-slavery crowd saw capitalism as a threat.
Some defenders of The 1619 Project have gotten upset with Magness and others for saying these things. I love The 1619 Project and personally I'm GLAD Magness is saying these things. If an intellectual assertion can't stand up to scrutiny then it doesn't deserve to be out there. Magness finds the weaknesses in Desmond and others' work and says "hey, the facts don't support you." That's a good thing. He does NOT take away from all the good that is in The 1619 Project, he doesn't (as some do) suggest that the project is by its very nature divisive, etc.
It's important to understand the limitations of what Magness is doing here.
Magness' critique doesn't mean that The 1619 Project is worthless. He says as much, often.
It doesn't even mean that Desmond's work here is worthless, as (in the book at least) there is more to Desmond's essay than just the claims that Magness debunks, and much of it is still worth reading.
And it certainly doesn't invalidate arguments for reparations, as there are more and better arguments for reparations than the ones based on the horrible accounting and misuse of historical data that Magness takes apart in here.
So, all in all a decent book. A critique of The 1619 Project that limits itself to a few very specific topics, makes good points, doesn't fall into the shrill anti-CRT hysteria of other "critiques." If you've read The 1619 Project and want to dig a little deeper and see a bit of the legit debate around certain points, then this is worth reading.
First, this book is a critique not of the book "The 1619 Project," but of the special edition 1619 magazine that preceded the book. The book is an expansion on the magazine. I have read the book, but not the magazine. While one can assume the content between the book and magazine are similar, they are not the same, so it is possible that a critique of the magazine touches on things that aren't relevant to the book.
Second, this book isn't really, truly even a critique of the "1619 Project" magazine as a whole, but rather of a few pieces from that larger project. Again, I haven't read the original magazine pieces, but my understanding is that, like the book, the original project covers a lot of different ground, with essays by various writers on various topics. This critique is concerned with almost none of that, focuses exclusively on three areas (and spends most of it's pages on only one of those three areas).
That said, this is a good, useful book, although not as good or useful as it might have been had it had a wider scope or had it been given a slightly more appropriate name ("A Critique of Matthew Desmond's Contribution to The 1619 Project," for instance).
This book is mostly a rebuttal of Matthew Desmond's claims (and similar claims in other similar books) that capitalism as we now it today is a child of slavery, that slavery was in essence a capitalist pursuit and that it has shaped our current economic system.
Magness does a solid job of debunking those claims. He shows clear evidence that the capitalists of the antebellum period were largely anti-slavery, and that the pro-slavery crowd saw capitalism as a threat.
Some defenders of The 1619 Project have gotten upset with Magness and others for saying these things. I love The 1619 Project and personally I'm GLAD Magness is saying these things. If an intellectual assertion can't stand up to scrutiny then it doesn't deserve to be out there. Magness finds the weaknesses in Desmond and others' work and says "hey, the facts don't support you." That's a good thing. He does NOT take away from all the good that is in The 1619 Project, he doesn't (as some do) suggest that the project is by its very nature divisive, etc.
It's important to understand the limitations of what Magness is doing here.
Magness' critique doesn't mean that The 1619 Project is worthless. He says as much, often.
It doesn't even mean that Desmond's work here is worthless, as (in the book at least) there is more to Desmond's essay than just the claims that Magness debunks, and much of it is still worth reading.
And it certainly doesn't invalidate arguments for reparations, as there are more and better arguments for reparations than the ones based on the horrible accounting and misuse of historical data that Magness takes apart in here.
So, all in all a decent book. A critique of The 1619 Project that limits itself to a few very specific topics, makes good points, doesn't fall into the shrill anti-CRT hysteria of other "critiques." If you've read The 1619 Project and want to dig a little deeper and see a bit of the legit debate around certain points, then this is worth reading.
May 22, 2024
AN ECONOMIC HISTORIAN LOOKS AT VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE 1619 PROJECT
Economic historian Phillip Magness wrote in the Preface to this 2020 book, “When I first weighed in upon the New York Times’ 1619 Project, I was struck by its conflicted messaging… the newspaper’s initiative conveyed a serious attempt to engage the public in an intellectual exchange about the history of slavery in the United States and its lingering harms to our social fabric…. At the same time, however, certain 1619 essayists infused this worthy line of inquiry with a heavy stream of ideologic advocacy. Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones announced the political intention openly, pairing progressive activism with the initiative’s stated educational purposes… The 1619 Project, it seemed, would serve as both an enduring long-term curriculum for high school and college classrooms and an activist manual for the 2020 campaign season. Unfortunately the blending of these two competing aims usually results in the sacrifice of scholarly standards in the service of the ideological objective---not by design, but by necessary implication of needing to reconcile the irreducible complexities of the past to a more simplistic political narrative.” (Pg. 1-2)
He continues, “I joined a broader discussion involving dozens of historians, economists, and other scholars that began to scrutinize other historical claims in the project… Not all 1619 Project criticisms hit their mark, tho8ugh, and … I broke from several of the other historian critics over the Times’ depiction of Abraham Lincoln. Hannah-Jones pointed out the sixteenth president’s recurring interest in colonizing freed slaves abroad after emancipating them… This earned her the animosity of a group of historian critics … including accusations of unfairly disparaging Lincoln. Having devoted a significant amount of my own scholarly work to Lincoln’s presidency, I weighed in… showing that the 1619 Project’s assessment was in closer line with historical evidence that these critics neglected to consider. The essays are presented herein, and they place me in the curious position of being one of the only 1619 Project critics to also come to its defense on one of the major points of contention.” (Pg. 4)
In the first essay, he notes, “In contemporary academia it has become trendy to depict plantation slavery as an integral component of American capitalism. A new multipart feature series in the New York Times advances this thesis, depicting free market capitalism as an inherently ‘racist’ institution and a direct lineal descendant of plantation slavery, still exhibiting the brutality of that system. This characterization draws heavily from the so-called ‘New History of Capitalism’ (NHC)---a genre of historical writing … that aggressively promotes the thesis that free market capitalism and slavery are inextricably linked. Many leading examples of NHC scholarship in the academy today are plagued by shoddy economic analysis and documented misuse of historical evidence…” (Pg. 17-18)
In another essay, he argues, “Ta-Nehisi Coates drew attention to the political cause of slavery reparations during a heavily publicized congressional hearing… Specifically, Coates contends that the case for reparations comes from the economic measurement of the antebellum slave economy in the United States. He testified, “By 1836 more than $600 million, almost half of the economic activity in the United States, derived directly or indirectly from the cotton produced by the million-odd slaves. Coate’s numbers come from Cornell University historian Ed Baptist’s 2014 book ‘The Half Has Never Been Told.’ Baptist… committed a fundamental accounting error. He proceeded to double and even triple count immediate transactions involved in cotton production… Baptist’s numbers are not only wrong---they reflect a basic unfamiliarity with the meaning and definition of GDP. When [Baptist’s book] first appeared… economists immediately picked up on the error…” (Pg. 31-33)
In a later essay, he observes, “One of the most hotly contested claims of the 1619 Project appears in its introductory essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones, who writes that ‘one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.’ … Hannah-Jones argues that … British colonial rule presented an emerging threat to the continuation of slavery, thereby providing an impetus for slave-owning Americans to support independence… There is a kernel of truth in Hannah-Jones’s interpretation… [although] slave-owners in the southern colonies … were more likely to interpret it as an attempt to foment the threat of a slave revolt … than a sign that Britain itself would impose emancipation in the near future.” (Pg. 39-40)
Later, he adds, “Hannah-Jones … argue[d] that [Lincoln’s] reputation as a racial egalitarian has been exaggerated. She points specifically to Lincoln’s longstanding support for the colonization of freed slaves abroad as a corollary feature of ending slavery… Elsewhere she points to grating remarks by Lincoln that questioned the possibility of attaining racial equality in the United States, and to his tepid reactions to the proposition of black citizenship at the end of the Civil War… The historians’ letter … contend[s] [she] has essentially cherry picked quotations and other examples of Lincoln’s shortcomings on racial matters and presented them out of context from his life and broader philosophical principles.” (Pg. 45) Magness notes, “the evidence of Lincoln’s sincere support for colonization is overwhelming. This finding carries with it the substantial caveat that Lincoln did not pursue this course out of personal racial animosity. Quite the contrary, his public and private statements consistently link the policy to his personal fears that former slave-owners would continue to oppress African-Americans after the Civil War.” (Pg. 49)
In another essay, he returns to Edward Baptist’s book, asserting, “Baptist’s book is an unscholarly mess of misinterpreted data, misrepresented sources, and empirical incompetence. In proclaiming the novelty of its own ‘never told’ story, he also constructs a bizarre strawman of the scholarly literature on the economics of slavery before his own work… The problems similarly extend to Baptist’s treatment of the Olmstead and Rhode data. Although Baptist uses the economists’ statistics, he conveniently omits their evidence that cotton production growth arose from biological innovation in seed strains…” (Pg. 63-64)
In a later essay, he observes, “It is therefore dismaying … to see [Project critics] being met with dismissive derision by many of the 1619 Project’s defenders… Similar comments from the history profession’s younger generations pointed out that the critics were ‘old white males.’… This crowd often flees from substantive engagement over disputed scholarly claims, but they’ll attack an interlocutor’s race, gender, or age in a heartbeat.” (Pg. 103-104)
In the concluding essay, he points out, “As originally framed, the 1619 Project depicted the preservation of slavery against a British emancipatory threat as a central motivating factor for the American Revolution. They are now relaxing that claim to suggest that preserving slavery was a motive for only ‘SOME of the colonists.’ The Times’ correction comes across as a minor edit on paper, but behind those two altered words is a stunning concession… Hannah-Jones began casting about after the fact for scholars who would lend credence to her evaluation of slavery to preeminence among the motives behind the Declaration of Independence… At the same time, Hannah-Jones’s own response to her scholarly critics devolved from an initial respectful engagement to aggressive derision… When a group of conservative African-American academics and journalists launched a competing ‘1776 Project’ in early 2020 to offer a counter-narrative, Hannah-Jones bombarded them with a string of personal attacks.” (Pg. 126-129)
This book will be of great interest to those studying the 1619 Project.
Economic historian Phillip Magness wrote in the Preface to this 2020 book, “When I first weighed in upon the New York Times’ 1619 Project, I was struck by its conflicted messaging… the newspaper’s initiative conveyed a serious attempt to engage the public in an intellectual exchange about the history of slavery in the United States and its lingering harms to our social fabric…. At the same time, however, certain 1619 essayists infused this worthy line of inquiry with a heavy stream of ideologic advocacy. Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones announced the political intention openly, pairing progressive activism with the initiative’s stated educational purposes… The 1619 Project, it seemed, would serve as both an enduring long-term curriculum for high school and college classrooms and an activist manual for the 2020 campaign season. Unfortunately the blending of these two competing aims usually results in the sacrifice of scholarly standards in the service of the ideological objective---not by design, but by necessary implication of needing to reconcile the irreducible complexities of the past to a more simplistic political narrative.” (Pg. 1-2)
He continues, “I joined a broader discussion involving dozens of historians, economists, and other scholars that began to scrutinize other historical claims in the project… Not all 1619 Project criticisms hit their mark, tho8ugh, and … I broke from several of the other historian critics over the Times’ depiction of Abraham Lincoln. Hannah-Jones pointed out the sixteenth president’s recurring interest in colonizing freed slaves abroad after emancipating them… This earned her the animosity of a group of historian critics … including accusations of unfairly disparaging Lincoln. Having devoted a significant amount of my own scholarly work to Lincoln’s presidency, I weighed in… showing that the 1619 Project’s assessment was in closer line with historical evidence that these critics neglected to consider. The essays are presented herein, and they place me in the curious position of being one of the only 1619 Project critics to also come to its defense on one of the major points of contention.” (Pg. 4)
In the first essay, he notes, “In contemporary academia it has become trendy to depict plantation slavery as an integral component of American capitalism. A new multipart feature series in the New York Times advances this thesis, depicting free market capitalism as an inherently ‘racist’ institution and a direct lineal descendant of plantation slavery, still exhibiting the brutality of that system. This characterization draws heavily from the so-called ‘New History of Capitalism’ (NHC)---a genre of historical writing … that aggressively promotes the thesis that free market capitalism and slavery are inextricably linked. Many leading examples of NHC scholarship in the academy today are plagued by shoddy economic analysis and documented misuse of historical evidence…” (Pg. 17-18)
In another essay, he argues, “Ta-Nehisi Coates drew attention to the political cause of slavery reparations during a heavily publicized congressional hearing… Specifically, Coates contends that the case for reparations comes from the economic measurement of the antebellum slave economy in the United States. He testified, “By 1836 more than $600 million, almost half of the economic activity in the United States, derived directly or indirectly from the cotton produced by the million-odd slaves. Coate’s numbers come from Cornell University historian Ed Baptist’s 2014 book ‘The Half Has Never Been Told.’ Baptist… committed a fundamental accounting error. He proceeded to double and even triple count immediate transactions involved in cotton production… Baptist’s numbers are not only wrong---they reflect a basic unfamiliarity with the meaning and definition of GDP. When [Baptist’s book] first appeared… economists immediately picked up on the error…” (Pg. 31-33)
In a later essay, he observes, “One of the most hotly contested claims of the 1619 Project appears in its introductory essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones, who writes that ‘one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.’ … Hannah-Jones argues that … British colonial rule presented an emerging threat to the continuation of slavery, thereby providing an impetus for slave-owning Americans to support independence… There is a kernel of truth in Hannah-Jones’s interpretation… [although] slave-owners in the southern colonies … were more likely to interpret it as an attempt to foment the threat of a slave revolt … than a sign that Britain itself would impose emancipation in the near future.” (Pg. 39-40)
Later, he adds, “Hannah-Jones … argue[d] that [Lincoln’s] reputation as a racial egalitarian has been exaggerated. She points specifically to Lincoln’s longstanding support for the colonization of freed slaves abroad as a corollary feature of ending slavery… Elsewhere she points to grating remarks by Lincoln that questioned the possibility of attaining racial equality in the United States, and to his tepid reactions to the proposition of black citizenship at the end of the Civil War… The historians’ letter … contend[s] [she] has essentially cherry picked quotations and other examples of Lincoln’s shortcomings on racial matters and presented them out of context from his life and broader philosophical principles.” (Pg. 45) Magness notes, “the evidence of Lincoln’s sincere support for colonization is overwhelming. This finding carries with it the substantial caveat that Lincoln did not pursue this course out of personal racial animosity. Quite the contrary, his public and private statements consistently link the policy to his personal fears that former slave-owners would continue to oppress African-Americans after the Civil War.” (Pg. 49)
In another essay, he returns to Edward Baptist’s book, asserting, “Baptist’s book is an unscholarly mess of misinterpreted data, misrepresented sources, and empirical incompetence. In proclaiming the novelty of its own ‘never told’ story, he also constructs a bizarre strawman of the scholarly literature on the economics of slavery before his own work… The problems similarly extend to Baptist’s treatment of the Olmstead and Rhode data. Although Baptist uses the economists’ statistics, he conveniently omits their evidence that cotton production growth arose from biological innovation in seed strains…” (Pg. 63-64)
In a later essay, he observes, “It is therefore dismaying … to see [Project critics] being met with dismissive derision by many of the 1619 Project’s defenders… Similar comments from the history profession’s younger generations pointed out that the critics were ‘old white males.’… This crowd often flees from substantive engagement over disputed scholarly claims, but they’ll attack an interlocutor’s race, gender, or age in a heartbeat.” (Pg. 103-104)
In the concluding essay, he points out, “As originally framed, the 1619 Project depicted the preservation of slavery against a British emancipatory threat as a central motivating factor for the American Revolution. They are now relaxing that claim to suggest that preserving slavery was a motive for only ‘SOME of the colonists.’ The Times’ correction comes across as a minor edit on paper, but behind those two altered words is a stunning concession… Hannah-Jones began casting about after the fact for scholars who would lend credence to her evaluation of slavery to preeminence among the motives behind the Declaration of Independence… At the same time, Hannah-Jones’s own response to her scholarly critics devolved from an initial respectful engagement to aggressive derision… When a group of conservative African-American academics and journalists launched a competing ‘1776 Project’ in early 2020 to offer a counter-narrative, Hannah-Jones bombarded them with a string of personal attacks.” (Pg. 126-129)
This book will be of great interest to those studying the 1619 Project.
Read
December 5, 2021"History is not a morality tale. The efforts to discredit the Revolution by focusing on the alleged hypocrisy of Jefferson and other founders contribute nothing to an understanding of history. The American Revolution cannot be understood as the sum of the subjective intentions and moral limitations of those who led it. The world-historical significance of the Revolution is best understood through an examination of its objective causes and consequences".[1]
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.[2]
Emancipation Declaration
Carry On Cleo is a 1964 British Comedy. In one scene, Julius Caeser, played by Kenneth Williams, is about to be assassinated by his bodyguards. Caesar sends out his bodyguard Hengist Pod played by Kenneth Connor, to save his life. Pod is a first-class coward. Hod faces the assassins only to find that someone else has slain them all. Hod goes back to Caesar and claims the credit.[3]
Reading Phillip W. Magness's book reminds me of this scene because he seems to take too much credit for something he does not entirely deserve. His downplaying of the lead political and historical role played by the World Socialist Website in exposing the lies and falsification of the 1619 project is especially troubling.[4] In 120 pages, he makes just one mention.
Despite being a critique of the 1619 project, Magness's short book gives this wretched piece of journalism and history far too much credit. He writes, "the newspaper's initiative conveyed a serious attempt to engage the public in an intellectual exchange about the history of slavery in the United States and its lingering harms to our social fabric".[5]
Magness, it seems, had no problem with the 1619 project until a number of the essays contained in the project assert that the origins of modern-day American capitalism stemmed largely from slavery. While making some correct historical points, Magness is not concerned with the preposterous claim that the American Revolution and Civil war were fought to defend slavery but is concerned with the projects "heavily anticapitalist political perspective".Magness critique of the project is not from the left but the right.
One of the more disturbing aspects of Magness's book is his agreement with the 1619' s project attack on Abraham Lincoln. He writes that he "has devoted a significant amount of scholarly work to Lincoln's presidency. I weighed in on the arguments as presented, showing that the 1619 Project's assessment was in closer line with historical evidence that these critics neglected to consider. The essays are presented herein, and they place me in the curious position of being one of the only 1619 Project critics to also come to its defence on one of the major points of contention.[6]
The 1619 Project's and Magness's attack on Abraham Lincoln is not only wrong but reprehensible. The 1619 Project's vendetta against Lincoln has been described as his second assassination. Lincoln's attitude towards slavery was complex and contradictory. To label him a racist is simplistic and false. As David North points out, "Abraham Lincoln was an extraordinarily complex man, whose life and politics reflected the contradictions of his time. He could not, as he once stated, "escape history." Determined to save the Union, he was driven by the logic of the bloody civil war to resort to revolutionary measures. In the course of the brutal struggle, Lincoln gave expression to the revolutionary-democratic aspirations that inspired hundreds of thousands of Americans to fight and sacrifice their lives for a "new birth of freedom."[7]
In another sleight of hand, Magness attempts to equate the 1619's project of the racialization of history with all what he calls "far-left groups. He states," Broadly speaking, the political discourse around race, which comes from a very far-left perspective, has an unfortunate effect of crowding out other forms of anti-discriminatory thinking, including the individualist form. The notion of individual rights and the dignity of the human person. The notion that people should not face persecution or discrimination based on their skin colour, based on their religion, based on their ethnicity. These are all stories rooted in the rights and liberties of an individual".
In reality, he is talking about the World Socialist Website. This slander needs answering. The reader can make their mind up by reading the book The New York Times' 1619 Project and the Racialist Falsification of History[8]. But I would add this quote as a rebuttal to Magness's slur. As David North says, the real purveyors of race theory are not the Trotskyists of the World Socialist Website but come from the academia which comes "Under the influence of postmodernism and its offspring, "critical race theory," the doors of American universities have been flung wide open for the propagation of deeply reactionary conceptions. Racial identity has replaced social class and related economic processes as the principal and essential analytic category".
To conclude, Magness book is, on the whole, an accommodation to the right-wing and racialist politics of the 1619 project. While containing some interesting work on the origins of slavery and early capitalism, the serious reader who wants a real critique of the 1619 project should read the book, The New York Times' 1619 Project and the Racialist Falsification of History.
[1] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019...
[2] A Transcription by the President of the United States of America:https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/fea...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry_O...
[4] wsws.org
[5] https://www.aier.org/article/the-1619...
[6] https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/20...
[7] Racial-communalist politics and the second assassination of Abraham Lincoln
Niles Niemuth, David North-https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020...
[8] The New York Times’ 1619 Project and the Racialist Falsification of History-https://mehring.com/product/the-new-y...
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.[2]
Emancipation Declaration
Carry On Cleo is a 1964 British Comedy. In one scene, Julius Caeser, played by Kenneth Williams, is about to be assassinated by his bodyguards. Caesar sends out his bodyguard Hengist Pod played by Kenneth Connor, to save his life. Pod is a first-class coward. Hod faces the assassins only to find that someone else has slain them all. Hod goes back to Caesar and claims the credit.[3]
Reading Phillip W. Magness's book reminds me of this scene because he seems to take too much credit for something he does not entirely deserve. His downplaying of the lead political and historical role played by the World Socialist Website in exposing the lies and falsification of the 1619 project is especially troubling.[4] In 120 pages, he makes just one mention.
Despite being a critique of the 1619 project, Magness's short book gives this wretched piece of journalism and history far too much credit. He writes, "the newspaper's initiative conveyed a serious attempt to engage the public in an intellectual exchange about the history of slavery in the United States and its lingering harms to our social fabric".[5]
Magness, it seems, had no problem with the 1619 project until a number of the essays contained in the project assert that the origins of modern-day American capitalism stemmed largely from slavery. While making some correct historical points, Magness is not concerned with the preposterous claim that the American Revolution and Civil war were fought to defend slavery but is concerned with the projects "heavily anticapitalist political perspective".Magness critique of the project is not from the left but the right.
One of the more disturbing aspects of Magness's book is his agreement with the 1619' s project attack on Abraham Lincoln. He writes that he "has devoted a significant amount of scholarly work to Lincoln's presidency. I weighed in on the arguments as presented, showing that the 1619 Project's assessment was in closer line with historical evidence that these critics neglected to consider. The essays are presented herein, and they place me in the curious position of being one of the only 1619 Project critics to also come to its defence on one of the major points of contention.[6]
The 1619 Project's and Magness's attack on Abraham Lincoln is not only wrong but reprehensible. The 1619 Project's vendetta against Lincoln has been described as his second assassination. Lincoln's attitude towards slavery was complex and contradictory. To label him a racist is simplistic and false. As David North points out, "Abraham Lincoln was an extraordinarily complex man, whose life and politics reflected the contradictions of his time. He could not, as he once stated, "escape history." Determined to save the Union, he was driven by the logic of the bloody civil war to resort to revolutionary measures. In the course of the brutal struggle, Lincoln gave expression to the revolutionary-democratic aspirations that inspired hundreds of thousands of Americans to fight and sacrifice their lives for a "new birth of freedom."[7]
In another sleight of hand, Magness attempts to equate the 1619's project of the racialization of history with all what he calls "far-left groups. He states," Broadly speaking, the political discourse around race, which comes from a very far-left perspective, has an unfortunate effect of crowding out other forms of anti-discriminatory thinking, including the individualist form. The notion of individual rights and the dignity of the human person. The notion that people should not face persecution or discrimination based on their skin colour, based on their religion, based on their ethnicity. These are all stories rooted in the rights and liberties of an individual".
In reality, he is talking about the World Socialist Website. This slander needs answering. The reader can make their mind up by reading the book The New York Times' 1619 Project and the Racialist Falsification of History[8]. But I would add this quote as a rebuttal to Magness's slur. As David North says, the real purveyors of race theory are not the Trotskyists of the World Socialist Website but come from the academia which comes "Under the influence of postmodernism and its offspring, "critical race theory," the doors of American universities have been flung wide open for the propagation of deeply reactionary conceptions. Racial identity has replaced social class and related economic processes as the principal and essential analytic category".
To conclude, Magness book is, on the whole, an accommodation to the right-wing and racialist politics of the 1619 project. While containing some interesting work on the origins of slavery and early capitalism, the serious reader who wants a real critique of the 1619 project should read the book, The New York Times' 1619 Project and the Racialist Falsification of History.
[1] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019...
[2] A Transcription by the President of the United States of America:https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/fea...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry_O...
[4] wsws.org
[5] https://www.aier.org/article/the-1619...
[6] https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/20...
[7] Racial-communalist politics and the second assassination of Abraham Lincoln
Niles Niemuth, David North-https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020...
[8] The New York Times’ 1619 Project and the Racialist Falsification of History-https://mehring.com/product/the-new-y...
October 5, 2021
Clearly lays out major deficiencies in the 1619 Project narrative
The author gives the Project credit where it is due, particularly in regard to its possibly more realistic reading of Lincoln. Mainly, though, the author points out the major flaws in the agenda-based narratives that attempt to convince readers that the primary motivation for the American Revolution was to preserve slavery. At best, the Project authors ignore serious scholarship that would disabuse them of that notion. At worst, some of them seem intent on ignoring such scholarship and refusing to engage with serious historians. Similar defects plague other Project authors' claims that capitalism is somehow deeply linked to slavery and tainted forever by that association. It is false, demonstrably so, and the author presents more than enough information to show that.
All articles show the sources of all claims and presentations. They are mostly straightforward and suitable for laymen. A few passages are just a bit more involved but can be navigated if the reader is serious about digesting everything the author is offering.
This is an important book because the claims in the 1619 Project are so outrageous, I would say vile in large part, and they are being injected into the culture by the New York Times and all the usual suspects. Accordingly, it is of the utmost importance that we arm ourselves with a clear understanding ofnthe deeply flawed work being presented and push back against it at every opportunity. This book provides more than enough basis for that understanding.
The author gives the Project credit where it is due, particularly in regard to its possibly more realistic reading of Lincoln. Mainly, though, the author points out the major flaws in the agenda-based narratives that attempt to convince readers that the primary motivation for the American Revolution was to preserve slavery. At best, the Project authors ignore serious scholarship that would disabuse them of that notion. At worst, some of them seem intent on ignoring such scholarship and refusing to engage with serious historians. Similar defects plague other Project authors' claims that capitalism is somehow deeply linked to slavery and tainted forever by that association. It is false, demonstrably so, and the author presents more than enough information to show that.
All articles show the sources of all claims and presentations. They are mostly straightforward and suitable for laymen. A few passages are just a bit more involved but can be navigated if the reader is serious about digesting everything the author is offering.
This is an important book because the claims in the 1619 Project are so outrageous, I would say vile in large part, and they are being injected into the culture by the New York Times and all the usual suspects. Accordingly, it is of the utmost importance that we arm ourselves with a clear understanding ofnthe deeply flawed work being presented and push back against it at every opportunity. This book provides more than enough basis for that understanding.
July 10, 2021
In these politically charged days, the truth is hard to find and yet is more important than ever. I have heard much about the 1619 Project as the basis for K-12 instruction and wanted to learn more about it. This critique was very factual, data driven and compelling. The author, Phillip Magness focuses on those areas that are within his expertise: The economic history of the US specializing in the 19th century. If only the authors of the 1619 project wrote from similar intellectual strengths. (Matthew Desmond is a prime example of a person with no expertise in economics, yet writes about the economics of slavery) Alas, they did not. Nor did they take the advice of the fact checker they hired or engage with experts and critics (whom they dismissed as "old white guys"--ironic, since many of the scholars cited in their work are also white guys.) To quote the author, "this embarrassing incident [ignoring the fact checker] reveals the idealogical nature of the 1619 project and how the Times' prioritization of it's political message has harmed and largely discredited its once promising value as a work of historical interpretation." If the 1619 propaganda becomes the story and history of this country and is taught in K-12, our children will believe a lie.
June 12, 2021
This book is not a fast read - there is a lot of material to digest and reflect upon. As a non-historian, I picked this up to understand more of current politically charged thought and the factual basis upon which it stands. Although I know this book is a critique, I gave the four-star rating because of the lack of "adultness" in calling out the authors of the original work. That aside, the critique is well researched, soundly put together, and rational in its assessment. I recommend this to anyone who desires to dig deep for truth concerning this period in history and its impact on today's sociopolitical aggressions.
June 12, 2022
The 1619 Project - a Critique
Phillip P. Magness ©2020
A short Book Report by Ron Housley (6.12.2022)
Many of us are familiar with the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter about national pandemic policy authored by credentialed academics, written at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. As I recall, the “Declaration” criticized some COVID-19 public policy mandates.
I think of “The 1619 Project - a Critique” as a companion piece, but on a different subject, authored by a Ph.D. economist and economic historian, published by AIER in Great Barrington, Massachusetts.
“1619 PROJECT” AND CRT
I came to this book with the perspective that The New York Times had launched and supported its “1619 Project” as an attempt to saturate the culture with a Critical Race Theory (CRT) perspective on American history, to beat its drum in behalf of the notion that America was founded on and made possible by its historic support of slavery. With the help of the Pulitzer Prize Board, the New York Times has already succeeded at infiltrating a significant number of American school districts with its own “1619 Project” version of curriculum materials aimed at changing how America views its own history.
Right from the launch of its “1619 Project” in The New York Times Magazine of August 2019, there has been a deluge of criticism, which the Times itself has steadfastly neglected to report. Instead, the Times has either ignored or “adjusted” content to conform with its downline purpose of pushing its new version of American history into the history books.
Of additional interest to me as a reader is the sense in which The Times “1619 Project” represents a public face of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in today’s culture. So much of American journalism, spearheaded in this case by The New York Times, seems to accept the premise that CRT is the preferred framework for viewing history — always focusing on history from the perspective of the oppressors and oppressed.
NEW HISTORY OF CAPITALISM (NHC)
Phillip E. Magness points out that there is an “emergent historiographical school” known as the New History of Capitalism (NHC), launched just after the 2018 financial crisis giving voice to the contention that slavery was somehow a central element of American capitalism. These new NHC historians painted a picture that slavery represented over 50% of the antebellum economy, not the 5% reported in all the other historical accountings.
By double and triple counting intermediate steps in cotton’s production chain, what their critics call “faulty methodology,” the NHC authors published just in time to fuel Ta-Nehisi Coates’ heavily publicized Congressional testimony (in 2019) attempting to resurrect sentiment for paying slavery reparations. That famous testimony became the warm-up act to the “1619 Project” itself. The NHC economic errors were quickly overlooked.
The new NHC literature apparently played a bigger role than I had known as the “1619 Project” burst upon the scene. Whereas “defenders of slavery in the mid-19th century actually presented their cause as an expressly anti-capitalist venture,” (p 36) the NHC approach does just the opposite: presenting their case that slavery is pro-capitalist. The entire “1619 Project” appears to be aimed at undercutting capitalism, so they naturally have to deny the long-held understanding that capitalism and slavery were always at odds.
The NHC authors are apparently counting upon their own contentious definition of capitalism, a definition which does not allow for capitalism’s most essential feature: that it is an economic-political system founded on protecting the individual rights of the citizens, and which prohibits the initiation of force in any human relationships, particularly outlawing government initiated coercion in the economic affairs of men. And what could be more coercive than outright slavery?!
The NHC “scholarship” tells us that a system which embraces slavery could somehow be considered capitalist(!). Capitalism, of course, does not allow subsidies, tariffs, regulations on businesses, crony favoritism, official industrial policies, issuing of currency, legal tender laws, forced schooling, or any of the governmental policies we accept today. The growing NHC literature calls all these elements “capitalist” in its mission to paint a picture where capitalism and slavery are somehow natural allies.
CAPITALISM V. SELF-SACRIFICE
Since the “New History of Capitalism” literature is crucial to much of the “1619 Project’s” contentions, Magness describes the central elements of this genre of economic history writings. But nowhere in Magness’s exposition does he make clear that the hatred for capitalism in our culture is solidly aligned with the culture’s embrace of self-sacrifice as our greatest moral imperative; and that the self-interest required for capitalism to prosper is roundly condemned by most intellectuals.
COLONIZATION V EMANCIPATION
There is apparently a mountain of nuance over President Lincoln’s intention to lessen some of the anticipated white-supremacist backlash after emancipation of the Southern slaves. He explored possible Caribbean and African sites to become permanent enclaves of freedom for many slaves and former slaves.
Lincoln apparently held heightened concern that freed slaves would become the targets of hatred by Southern whites, a concern which history has all too sadly borne out. Both sides in the debate over whether Lincoln’s efforts were racist or not try to frame old documents in a context to support their own side. The NYT’s “1619 Project,” of course, is on the side of today’s anti-capitalist “New History of Capitalism” faction. But upon closer inspection, it appears that there is important documentary evidence that Lincoln’s efforts were not at all racist, as the “1619 Project” contends them to be.
The section in Magness’s book dealing with controversies in historical analysis seem to favor a negative assessment of the Times’ “1619 Project,” as guilty of serious academic malfeasance — in the name of furthering the Times’ activist narrative to diminish the regard for capitalism throughout American culture.
TODAY
As of this reading (June 2022), the New York Times is succeeding in the effort to insert its version of American history into high school and college curricula. Phillip W. Magness persists in contending that “1619 Project” chief editor, Hannah-Jones, has “blurred the lines between scholarship and activism” in her attempt promote the notion that the entire purpose of the American Revolution has been to support slavery. The New York Times has mostly supported its own “1619 Project,” even as it continues to be the object of important criticism. The present book sheds light on some of the details of the criticism itself.
Phillip P. Magness ©2020
A short Book Report by Ron Housley (6.12.2022)
Many of us are familiar with the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter about national pandemic policy authored by credentialed academics, written at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. As I recall, the “Declaration” criticized some COVID-19 public policy mandates.
I think of “The 1619 Project - a Critique” as a companion piece, but on a different subject, authored by a Ph.D. economist and economic historian, published by AIER in Great Barrington, Massachusetts.
“1619 PROJECT” AND CRT
I came to this book with the perspective that The New York Times had launched and supported its “1619 Project” as an attempt to saturate the culture with a Critical Race Theory (CRT) perspective on American history, to beat its drum in behalf of the notion that America was founded on and made possible by its historic support of slavery. With the help of the Pulitzer Prize Board, the New York Times has already succeeded at infiltrating a significant number of American school districts with its own “1619 Project” version of curriculum materials aimed at changing how America views its own history.
Right from the launch of its “1619 Project” in The New York Times Magazine of August 2019, there has been a deluge of criticism, which the Times itself has steadfastly neglected to report. Instead, the Times has either ignored or “adjusted” content to conform with its downline purpose of pushing its new version of American history into the history books.
Of additional interest to me as a reader is the sense in which The Times “1619 Project” represents a public face of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in today’s culture. So much of American journalism, spearheaded in this case by The New York Times, seems to accept the premise that CRT is the preferred framework for viewing history — always focusing on history from the perspective of the oppressors and oppressed.
NEW HISTORY OF CAPITALISM (NHC)
Phillip E. Magness points out that there is an “emergent historiographical school” known as the New History of Capitalism (NHC), launched just after the 2018 financial crisis giving voice to the contention that slavery was somehow a central element of American capitalism. These new NHC historians painted a picture that slavery represented over 50% of the antebellum economy, not the 5% reported in all the other historical accountings.
By double and triple counting intermediate steps in cotton’s production chain, what their critics call “faulty methodology,” the NHC authors published just in time to fuel Ta-Nehisi Coates’ heavily publicized Congressional testimony (in 2019) attempting to resurrect sentiment for paying slavery reparations. That famous testimony became the warm-up act to the “1619 Project” itself. The NHC economic errors were quickly overlooked.
The new NHC literature apparently played a bigger role than I had known as the “1619 Project” burst upon the scene. Whereas “defenders of slavery in the mid-19th century actually presented their cause as an expressly anti-capitalist venture,” (p 36) the NHC approach does just the opposite: presenting their case that slavery is pro-capitalist. The entire “1619 Project” appears to be aimed at undercutting capitalism, so they naturally have to deny the long-held understanding that capitalism and slavery were always at odds.
The NHC authors are apparently counting upon their own contentious definition of capitalism, a definition which does not allow for capitalism’s most essential feature: that it is an economic-political system founded on protecting the individual rights of the citizens, and which prohibits the initiation of force in any human relationships, particularly outlawing government initiated coercion in the economic affairs of men. And what could be more coercive than outright slavery?!
The NHC “scholarship” tells us that a system which embraces slavery could somehow be considered capitalist(!). Capitalism, of course, does not allow subsidies, tariffs, regulations on businesses, crony favoritism, official industrial policies, issuing of currency, legal tender laws, forced schooling, or any of the governmental policies we accept today. The growing NHC literature calls all these elements “capitalist” in its mission to paint a picture where capitalism and slavery are somehow natural allies.
CAPITALISM V. SELF-SACRIFICE
Since the “New History of Capitalism” literature is crucial to much of the “1619 Project’s” contentions, Magness describes the central elements of this genre of economic history writings. But nowhere in Magness’s exposition does he make clear that the hatred for capitalism in our culture is solidly aligned with the culture’s embrace of self-sacrifice as our greatest moral imperative; and that the self-interest required for capitalism to prosper is roundly condemned by most intellectuals.
COLONIZATION V EMANCIPATION
There is apparently a mountain of nuance over President Lincoln’s intention to lessen some of the anticipated white-supremacist backlash after emancipation of the Southern slaves. He explored possible Caribbean and African sites to become permanent enclaves of freedom for many slaves and former slaves.
Lincoln apparently held heightened concern that freed slaves would become the targets of hatred by Southern whites, a concern which history has all too sadly borne out. Both sides in the debate over whether Lincoln’s efforts were racist or not try to frame old documents in a context to support their own side. The NYT’s “1619 Project,” of course, is on the side of today’s anti-capitalist “New History of Capitalism” faction. But upon closer inspection, it appears that there is important documentary evidence that Lincoln’s efforts were not at all racist, as the “1619 Project” contends them to be.
The section in Magness’s book dealing with controversies in historical analysis seem to favor a negative assessment of the Times’ “1619 Project,” as guilty of serious academic malfeasance — in the name of furthering the Times’ activist narrative to diminish the regard for capitalism throughout American culture.
TODAY
As of this reading (June 2022), the New York Times is succeeding in the effort to insert its version of American history into high school and college curricula. Phillip W. Magness persists in contending that “1619 Project” chief editor, Hannah-Jones, has “blurred the lines between scholarship and activism” in her attempt promote the notion that the entire purpose of the American Revolution has been to support slavery. The New York Times has mostly supported its own “1619 Project,” even as it continues to be the object of important criticism. The present book sheds light on some of the details of the criticism itself.
June 12, 2021
I listened to the 1619 Project via podcast. I really enjoyed it and felt like I learned a lot and gained perspective on the narrative of American history. There are clearly details left out of school curriculum. However, I also heard such backlash about the content that I wanted to understand the opposing opinion. This book served that purpose. It is written with a very journalistic and/ or academic tone that I can’t say I “enjoyed” it, but I do appreciate this opposing opinion on this topic.
August 23, 2020
A solid critique of a flawed project by the Gray Lady. A bit repetitive and perhaps too heavily focused on the author's prior works. But the book explains well and without histrionics how the 1619 Project starts with an overstated and flawed premise and accepts as true historical facts that simply are false to come to a wrong conclusion. It is sad that the 1619 Project seems to have traction.
January 18, 2022
Two Points of the 1619 Project Criticized
Phil Magness has devoted the majority of his "critique" of the 1619 project to 2 aspects of the entire work -- and claims that these 2 weaknesses essentially invalidate the whole project.
The 2 aspects that he criticizes are well within his areas of scholarly expertise.
His contention that the original claims of the Project that British emancipatory fervor constituted an existential threat to U.S. slavery and that cotton production counted for half of U.S. wealth production during the 19th century is valid.
Magness does provide a necessary correction to these 2 aspects of the project -- and does provide support for the project's depiction of Abraham Lincoln as supporting colonization of African-Americans elsewhere after emancipation.
Recommended reading for those who have read the original 1619 project.
Phil Magness has devoted the majority of his "critique" of the 1619 project to 2 aspects of the entire work -- and claims that these 2 weaknesses essentially invalidate the whole project.
The 2 aspects that he criticizes are well within his areas of scholarly expertise.
His contention that the original claims of the Project that British emancipatory fervor constituted an existential threat to U.S. slavery and that cotton production counted for half of U.S. wealth production during the 19th century is valid.
Magness does provide a necessary correction to these 2 aspects of the project -- and does provide support for the project's depiction of Abraham Lincoln as supporting colonization of African-Americans elsewhere after emancipation.
Recommended reading for those who have read the original 1619 project.
August 22, 2020
A must read to fully understand the 1619 Project
This book does an excellent job of highlighting all of the many flaws of the 1619 Project, a fraudulent misrepresentation of history. The notion that the
promoters of the 1619 Project seek to indoctrinate our children with this rendition of Marxist critical race theory is most frightening. This book calls out this subversive scheme.
This book does an excellent job of highlighting all of the many flaws of the 1619 Project, a fraudulent misrepresentation of history. The notion that the
promoters of the 1619 Project seek to indoctrinate our children with this rendition of Marxist critical race theory is most frightening. This book calls out this subversive scheme.
September 11, 2022
Tough Read
The author seems to be quite knowledgeable on a number of matters of import relative to this project. At times, the coverage of the arguments was difficult for this reader who comes from the field of management to read and understand. But it was worth the effort as a very important piece of the entire story.
The author seems to be quite knowledgeable on a number of matters of import relative to this project. At times, the coverage of the arguments was difficult for this reader who comes from the field of management to read and understand. But it was worth the effort as a very important piece of the entire story.
July 27, 2020
No review at this time.
October 16, 2020
Well Researched
Each part of the 1619 Project is proven at the highest level, sometimes melting my mind down beyond my academic level.
Each part of the 1619 Project is proven at the highest level, sometimes melting my mind down beyond my academic level.
June 14, 2021
an interesting account of how CJT contaminates public discourse
April 12, 2022
Provides not just footnotes but also useful links to papers and research. Even handed and fair. Highly recommend.
Read
July 19, 2022Boring.
August 31, 2023
9.5/10
July 8, 2020
Excellent explanation of a very slanted program!
I would have give the publication five stars but for two issues:
1. The author repeated several points several times that had already been well established. Apparently the chapters were originally independent, self standing, articles. Of necessity, the original articles would review arguments that were made earlier. Still, the repetition was distracting.
2. The chapter titled “A Comment on the ‘New’ History of American Capitalism” was extremely esoteric & difficult to follow. I understand the work is “scholarly” but this chapter was a bit much.
I would have give the publication five stars but for two issues:
1. The author repeated several points several times that had already been well established. Apparently the chapters were originally independent, self standing, articles. Of necessity, the original articles would review arguments that were made earlier. Still, the repetition was distracting.
2. The chapter titled “A Comment on the ‘New’ History of American Capitalism” was extremely esoteric & difficult to follow. I understand the work is “scholarly” but this chapter was a bit much.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews